Quick Question To FEC: "Why Is John Conyers Registered As Campaign Website Administrator?"

Quick question to the FEC: 

Why is John Conyers registered as the site administrator and contact?

I have alot more questions, but I am pretty sure I already know the answers.

Stay tuned.

Showing results for: JOHNCONYERS.COM

Original Query: johnconyers.com

Contact Information

Registrant Contact

Name: Conyers, John

Organization: Conyers for Congress Committee

Mailing Address: 1031 North Edgewood Street, Arlington VA 22201 US

Phone: 540-548-2988

Ext:

Fax:

Fax Ext:

Email:campaign@johnconyers.com

Admin Contact

Name: Conyers, John

Organization: Conyers for Congress Committee

Mailing Address: 1031 North Edgewood Street, Arlington VA 22201 US

Phone: 540-548-2988

Ext:

Fax:

Fax Ext:

Email:campaign@johnconyers.com

Tech Contact

Name: Inc., NameSecure

Organization: Namesecure Inc.

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 785, Herndon VA 20172 US

Phone: +1.5707088418

Ext:

Fax:

Fax Ext:

Email:support@namesecure.com

Registrar

WHOIS Server: whois.namesecure.com

URL: http://www.namesecure.com

Registrar: NAMESECURE.COM

IANA ID: 30

Abuse Contact Email:abuse@web.com

Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8888012112

Status

Important Dates

Updated Date: 2017-03-20

Created Date: 2003-11-27

Registrar Expiration Date: 2019-07-22

Name Servers

DNS2.NAMESECURE.COM

DNS1.NAMESECURE.COM

Raw WHOIS Record

Domain Name: JOHNCONYERS.COM
Registry Domain ID: Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.namesecure.com
Registrar URL: http://www.namesecure.com
Updated Date: 2017-03-20T17:26:05Z
Creation Date: 2003-11-27T12:55:27Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2019-07-22T04:00:00Z
Registrar: NAMESECURE.COM
Registrar IANA ID: 30
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@web.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8888012112
Reseller: Domain Status: Registry Registrant ID: Registrant Name: Conyers, John
Registrant Organization: Conyers for Congress Committee
Registrant Street: 1031 North Edgewood Street
Registrant City: Arlington Registrant State/Province: VA
Registrant Postal Code: 22201
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: 540-548-2988
Registrant Phone Ext:
 Registrant Fax:
 Registrant Fax Ext:
 Registrant Email: campaign@johnconyers.com
Registry Admin ID:
 Admin Name: Conyers, John 
 Admin Organization: Conyers for Congress Committee
 Admin Street: 1031 North Edgewood Street
Admin City: Arlington
Admin State/Province: VA Admin Postal Code: 22201
Admin Country: US Admin Phone: 540-548-2988
Admin Phone Ext:
 Admin Fax:
 Admin Fax Ext:
 Admin Email: campaign@johnconyers.com
Registry Tech ID: Tech Name: Inc.,
NameSecure Tech Organization: Namesecure Inc.
Tech Street: P.O. Box 785 Tech City: Herndon
Tech State/Province: VA Tech Postal Code: 20172
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.5707088418
Tech Phone Ext:
 Tech Fax:
 Tech Fax Ext:
 Tech Email: support@namesecure.com
Name Server: DNS2.NAMESECURE.COM
Name Server: DNS1.NAMESECURE.COM DNSSEC:
Unsigned URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/ >>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2017-12-07T06:25:22Z <<<

FEC FORM 1

STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION

FILING FEC-1147776

---

1. Conyers for Congress

    1050 17th St NW
    Ste 590
    Washington, DC 20036
    Email: janica@pcmsllc.com

2. Date: 02/01/2017

3. FEC Committee ID #: C00409797

This committee is a Principal Campaign Committee.

Candidate: John Conyers, Jr.
Party: Democratic Party
Office Sought: House of Representatives
State is Michigan in District: 13

Affiliated Committees/Organizations

None
, ____

Custodian of Records:

Janica Kyriacopoulos
1050 17th St NW
Ste 590
Washington, DC 20036
Title: Custodian of Records
Phone # (202) 628-1580

Treasurer:

Greg Barnes
1050 17th St NW Ste 520
Washington, DC 20036
Title: Treasurer

Designated Agent(s):

Greg Barnes
1050 17th St NW
Ste 520
Washington, DC 20036
Title: Treasurer

Banks or Depositories

Amalgamated Bank
1825 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006

Signed: Greg Barnes
Date Signed: 02/06/2017
Official Committee URL: http://www.johnconyers.com

(End FEC FORM 1)

Generated Thu Dec 7 02:00:45 2017

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Statement On Oversight Of The U.S. Department Of Justice Hearing With Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the ordinary course of business, any one of a dozen topics related to the Department of Justice would be worthy of its own hearing.

And, to be clear, I would rather spend our time today discussing the upkeep of the criminal justice system, the enforcement of civil rights, and the work we must all do to ensure access to the ballot box.

Instead, we must spend our time debating the troubles of a wayward Administration: how the Attorney General conducts himself before Congress, how President Trump undermines the integrity of the justice system, and how the Department continues to ignore the oversight requests of this Committee.

Although this is the Attorney General’s first appearance before the House, he has already made three visits to our colleagues in the Senate.

At his confirmation hearing, he testified that he “did not have communications with the Russians.” 

Last month, he testified that “a continuing exchange of information between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government . . . did not happen, at least to my knowledge, and not with me.”

We know now, of course, that neither of those statements is true.

Shortly after the Attorney General made the first comment, the Washington Post reported that he met with the Russian Ambassador at least twice during the campaign.

In the past month, we have also learned that the Attorney General must have been very much aware of a continuing exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. 

In charging documents unsealed last month, George Papadopoulos—a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign—admits to extensive communications with Russian contacts.

At a March 31, 2016 meeting of the campaign’s National Security Advisory Committee—attended by candidate Trump, and chaired by Senator Sessions—Mr. Papadopoulos stated, “in sum and substance, that he had connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin.”

It does not matter, as has been reported, that the Attorney General remembers this meeting after the fact—remembers it so vividly, in fact, that two unnamed sources say the Senator “shut George down.”

Under oath, knowing in advance that he would be asked about this subject, the Attorney General gave answers that were, at best, incomplete.

I hope the Attorney General can provide some clarification on this problem in his remarks today. I also hope that he can assure us that the Department is weathering near-daily attacks on its independence by President Trump—and that no office of the Department is being used to pressure the President’s political enemies.

In recent months, President Trump has attacked the “beleaguered” Attorney General, and criticized his “VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes.”

The President has talked openly about firing the leadership of the Department—including the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the former Acting Director of the FBI, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

He did fire former FBI Director Comey—in his own words, “because of that Russia thing with Trump and Russia”—as well as acting Attorney General Sally Yates and all 46 sitting U.S. Attorneys.

Last year, he denigrated a federal judge because of his “Mexican heritage.”

Judge Curiel was born in Indiana, by the way.

Last month, in a radio interview, President Trump said he was “very unhappy” with the Justice Department. 

Hours later, he proclaimed the military justice system “a complete and total disgrace.”

But the one that sticks with me is the President’s July interview with the New York Times.

In that interview, he begins by, once again, attacking the Attorney General’s credibility. “Sessions never should have recused himself,” the President complains.

Then the conversation takes a sinister turn: “When Nixon came along . . . out of courtesy, the FBI started reporting to the Department of Justice.

But the FBI person really reports directly to the president of the United States.”

He goes on: “I could have ended [the Flynn investigation] just by saying—they say it can’t be obstruction because you can say, ‘It’s ended. It’s over. Period.’”

As is often the case, the President requires some correction.

The Director of the FBI reports directly to the Attorney General, and has since the founding of the Bureau.

It can be obstruction of justice, if the President orders an investigation closed with a corrupt motive.

But what strikes me about these comments is the President’s view that the criminal justice system serves him—and not the public.

President Trump seems to believe that, on a whim, he can bring pressure to bear on his enemies, dismiss charges against his allies, and insulate himself and his family from any consequence. I cannot overemphasize the danger this perspective poses to our republic.

I have served on this Committee long enough to remember another President who shared this view. I was, myself, on Richard Nixon’s enemies list.

And although we worked to hold that Administration accountable, our work is not complete.

We must all remember our common responsibility to prevent that kind of abuse from happening again. I will look to the Attorney General’s partnership in this effort—but I have begun to worry about his resolve.

Last night, in a letter sent by the Department to Chairman Goodlatte—without so much as a copy to the Ranking Member, by the way—the Assistant Attorney General seems to leave the door open to appointing a new special counsel to cater to the President’s political needs.

The fact that this letter was sent to the Majority, without the customary and appropriate notice to me, indicates that the charge given to Department officials to evaluate these issues has political motivations.

Now, in his own words, the Attorney General is recused “from any questions involving . . . investigations that involve Secretary Clinton.”

Further, we cannot refer an investigation to a second special counsel if we lack the evidence to predicate a criminal investigation in the first place.

Virtually every Clinton-related matter that President Trump complains about has been well-litigated, carefully examined, and completely debunked.

Still, to quote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, “putting political opponents in jail for offenses committed in a political setting . . . is something that we don’t do here.”

The threat alone resembles, in his words, “a banana republic.”

Finally, there is the matter of routine oversight between hearings.

In the recent history of this Committee, new attorneys general usually come to see us within two or three months of taking office.

No attorney general in recent memory has taken more than six months before making an appearance here.

Attorney General Sessions has broken that norm—he has had more than ten months to settle in—making our communications with the Department between hearings that much more important.

To date, my colleagues and I have sent more than forty letters to the Trump Administration asking for information necessary to carry out our oversight responsibilities.

We have sent more than a dozen of these letters directly to the Attorney General. To date, we have not received a single substantive response.

We can disagree on matters of policy, Mr. Attorney General—but you cannot keep us in the dark forever.

When we make a reasonable oversight request, we expect you to reply in a prompt and responsive manner. I hope you can explain why your Department has chosen to ignore these letters.

More importantly, I hope that you will be more forthcoming with your answers—both in your testimony today and in the weeks to come.

I look forward to your testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

A Dangerous Rush to Impeach John Koskinen

First, the House must prove that the IRS commissioner acted in deliberate bad faith.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

The power of impeachment is a responsibility entrusted to the House of Representatives by the Constitution and to the House Judiciary Committee by our peers. I take this charge very seriously—and, for the most part, so do my colleagues in the majority.

I have served on the House Judiciary Committee long enough now to see impeachment done right and to see impeachment done wrong. I have participated in six of the 19 impeachments approved by the House since its inception. I voted in favor of five of them. In the early 1970s I helped to draft articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. I joined with 20 Democrats and six Republicans to send three of those articles to the House floor.

But I have never seen anything quite like the obsession of a few House members determined to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen—without much evidence to back their claims, without an independent investigation by the House Judiciary Committee, and without even basic due process for the accused.

To be successful, the impeachment process must transcend party lines. Part of this is by design. Article I of the Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate to convict on each article of impeachment—a threshold that has always required some degree of consensus.

Consensus matters in the House as well. We have built decades of precedent around the notion of formal, rigorous due process in impeachment proceedings. According to House rules, impeachment does not begin until the House approves a resolution that authorizes the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether impeachment is warranted.

The Judiciary Committee must carefully and independently review the evidence—even if it has already been analyzed by our colleagues on other committees. And we can only address allegations that are supported by the record and proven, not inferred.

Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) summarized the importance of this practice in 2010, when the committee’s Task Force on Judicial Impeachment unanimously recommended four articles of impeachment against a federal judge. Mr. Goodlatte said: “This recommendation was the culmination of an exhaustive investigation by the task force, which included reviewing the records of past proceedings, rooting out new evidence that was never considered in previous investigations, conducting numerous interviews and depositions with firsthand witnesses, and conducting hearings to take the testimony of firsthand witnesses and federal scholars.”

This process is hard work. It takes time. But it is designed to separate truly substantive charges from merely expedient ones. And when the House Judiciary Committee follows its own precedent, we generally arrive at the right conclusion. In almost every modern case, a bipartisan consensus on impeachment in the House leads to a swift and successful impeachment in the Senate.

In the past few days, the actions of a small group of conservative House members threaten to break from this precedent and to lead us down a dangerous path. Earlier this year, they delivered an ultimatum to Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.): Hold impeachment hearings in the House Judiciary Committee, or face a vote on this matter on the House floor. Speaker Ryan and Chairman Goodlatte opted for the hearings.

In May and June, the Committee held Parts I and II of a hearing to “Examine the Allegations of Misconduct against Commissioner John Koskinen.” As the carefully worded title would suggest, these were not formal impeachment hearings.

Last week this group struck again and attempted to force a vote on impeachment on the House floor. In the 11th hour, when it appeared they would fall short of the necessary votes, they withdrew the measure—and a third hearing was held Wednesday. This hearing was titled “Impeachment Articles Referred on John Koskinen, Part III.” Despite the name change, this hearing also was not an actual impeachment hearing. It was one more exploratory hearing in the series, with none of the hallmarks of real impeachment.

On the merits, Mr. Koskinen’s critics have simply failed to make their case. They have been unable to produce evidence that the commissioner acted in bad faith at any point in his tenure. The Senate Finance Committee, the Justice Department and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration have all concluded that there is “no evidence” of intentional misconduct of any kind.

But even if there were some evidence of Mr. Koskinen’s wrongdoing, the push to impeach him without due process in the House Judiciary Committee is dangerously misguided. Never, in the history of this body, have we impeached a government official without first proving he has acted in deliberate bad faith.

Never, in modern practice, have we declined to provide the accused with the most basic due process: the right to counsel, the right to present evidence, and the right to question the evidence against him.

In this case, Mr. Koskinen has actually been denied access to the transcripts of interviews conducted by the House Committee on Government and Oversight Reform—interviews that we are told were key in forming the charges against him.

If the commissioner’s critics have their way, I fear we will have a new rule going forward: The House may impeach any government official, for any reason, without supplying evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, without an independent investigation, and without regard to basic fairness toward the accused.

Forcing a vote on impeachment in this manner will certainly not result in the removal of Commissioner Koskinen. Even if his critics succeed in the House, Senators of both parties have already stated their intent to bury the matter. So for all their efforts they will have profited nothing. And in the process they will have turned impeachment from a constitutional check of last resort into a tool of political convenience.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Hearing on “Impeachment Articles Referred on John Koskinen, Part III” before the Committee on the Judiciary

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  And thank you, Commissioner Koskinen, for joining us today on short notice, under these unusual circumstances.

Last week, a handful of my colleagues attempted to force a vote on your impeachment. When it appeared that they would fall short of the necessary votes, that effort was abandoned—and this hearing was scheduled instead.

I hope that my colleagues now see what I see when I look back at the history of impeachment in the House of Representatives: No matter how we feel about a particular official, no matter what we think about his or her agency, successful impeachments are bipartisan efforts—and partisan attacks cloaked in the impeachment process are doomed from the start.

Mr. Chairman, the effort to impeach Commissioner Koskinen is destined to fail both on the merits and as a matter of process. And if they somehow force this measure to the floor again, I fear it will set a terrible precedent.

On the merits, the Commissioner’s critics simply have not proved their case.  In fact, every other investigation to have examined these facts has refuted the charges against Commissioner Koskinen.

The Senate Finance Committee, in a report that serves as the only bipartisan account of the matter, found no evidence that the Commissioner had intent to mislead Congress at any time.

The Department of Justice “found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives,” and “no evidence that any official . . . attempted to obstruct justice.”

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found no evidence to show “that IRS employees had been directed to destroy or hide information from Congress.” 

Despite these findings, some Members continue to insist that the Commissioner “ordered 24,000 emails erased before Congress could review them.”  Citing “zero evidence” to back the claim, independent fact checkers rate this statement as categorically false. There is simply no evidence that the Commissioner has acted with intentional bad faith in his leadership of the Internal Revenue Service.

           

But even if there were some evidence of wrongdoing, the push to impeach the Commissioner on the House floor without even basic due process in the Committee is wildly misguided.

According to Parliamentarians of the House past and present, the impeachment process does not begin until the House actually votes to authorize this Committee to investigate the charges.

In other words: this is not an impeachment hearing.  Merely including the word “impeachment” in the title doesn’t do the job. At an actual impeachment hearing, the Commissioner would be represented by counsel.  He would have the right to present evidence, and the right to question the evidence presented against him. 

In this case, by contrast, the Commissioner has been denied access to the transcripts of interviews conducted by the House Oversight Committee—even though we are told that those transcripts were key in forming the charges against him.  Many members of this Committee are in the same position, I might add.

I am not alone in being skeptical of short process, or in noting the importance of a full and independent investigation by this Committee.

In 2006, Mr. Sensenbrenner argued: “only after the House Judiciary Committee has conducted a fair, thorough, and detailed investigation, will Committee members be able to consider whether articles of impeachment might be warranted.”

In 2010, Mr. Chairman, you expressed confidence in our Impeachment Task Force because it had conducted “an exhaustive investigation.”

That investigation included, in your words: “reviewing the records of past proceedings, rooting out new evidence that was never considered in previous investigations, conducting numerous interviews and depositions with firsthand witnesses, and conducting hearings to take the testimony of firsthand witnesses and scholars.”

           

All of that process is missing here.  Yes, we have it within our power to skip these steps—but what kind of precedent does that set?

Never, in the history of this body, have we impeached a government official without first proving he has acted in deliberate bad faith.

Never, in modern practice, have we declined to provide the accused with the most basic due process: the right to counsel, the right to present evidence, and the right to question the evidence against him.

If the Commissioner’s critics have their way, I fear we will have a new rule going forward:

The House may impeach any government official, for any reason, without supplying evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, without an independent investigation, and without regard to basic fairness towards the accused.

Forcing a vote in this manner will certainly not result in the removal of the Commissioner.  Even if his critics succeed here, Senators of both parties have already stated their intent to bury the matter.

                                                                                                                                             

And in the process, I fear, we will have stripped our responsibilities of their weight and dignity, and turned impeachment from a constitutional check of last resort into a tool of political convenience.

I cannot accept that.  None of us should.  Commissioner Koskinen, thank you again for your willingness to be here today.  Stick to the law and the facts and you’ll be fine.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Hearing on “Impeachment Articles Referred on John Koskinen, Part III” before the Committee on the Judiciary

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  And thank you, Commissioner Koskinen, for joining us today on short notice, under these unusual circumstances.

Last week, a handful of my colleagues attempted to force a vote on your impeachment. When it appeared that they would fall short of the necessary votes, that effort was abandoned—and this hearing was scheduled instead.

I hope that my colleagues now see what I see when I look back at the history of impeachment in the House of Representatives: No matter how we feel about a particular official, no matter what we think about his or her agency, successful impeachments are bipartisan efforts—and partisan attacks cloaked in the impeachment process are doomed from the start.

Mr. Chairman, the effort to impeach Commissioner Koskinen is destined to fail both on the merits and as a matter of process. And if they somehow force this measure to the floor again, I fear it will set a terrible precedent.

On the merits, the Commissioner’s critics simply have not proved their case.  In fact, every other investigation to have examined these facts has refuted the charges against Commissioner Koskinen.

The Senate Finance Committee, in a report that serves as the only bipartisan account of the matter, found no evidence that the Commissioner had intent to mislead Congress at any time.

The Department of Justice “found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives,” and “no evidence that any official . . . attempted to obstruct justice.”

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found no evidence to show “that IRS employees had been directed to destroy or hide information from Congress.” 

Despite these findings, some Members continue to insist that the Commissioner “ordered 24,000 emails erased before Congress could review them.”  Citing “zero evidence” to back the claim, independent fact checkers rate this statement as categorically false. There is simply no evidence that the Commissioner has acted with intentional bad faith in his leadership of the Internal Revenue Service.

           

But even if there were some evidence of wrongdoing, the push to impeach the Commissioner on the House floor without even basic due process in the Committee is wildly misguided.

According to Parliamentarians of the House past and present, the impeachment process does not begin until the House actually votes to authorize this Committee to investigate the charges.

In other words: this is not an impeachment hearing.  Merely including the word “impeachment” in the title doesn’t do the job. At an actual impeachment hearing, the Commissioner would be represented by counsel.  He would have the right to present evidence, and the right to question the evidence presented against him. 

In this case, by contrast, the Commissioner has been denied access to the transcripts of interviews conducted by the House Oversight Committee—even though we are told that those transcripts were key in forming the charges against him.  Many members of this Committee are in the same position, I might add.

I am not alone in being skeptical of short process, or in noting the importance of a full and independent investigation by this Committee.

In 2006, Mr. Sensenbrenner argued: “only after the House Judiciary Committee has conducted a fair, thorough, and detailed investigation, will Committee members be able to consider whether articles of impeachment might be warranted.”

In 2010, Mr. Chairman, you expressed confidence in our Impeachment Task Force because it had conducted “an exhaustive investigation.”

That investigation included, in your words: “reviewing the records of past proceedings, rooting out new evidence that was never considered in previous investigations, conducting numerous interviews and depositions with firsthand witnesses, and conducting hearings to take the testimony of firsthand witnesses and scholars.”

           

All of that process is missing here.  Yes, we have it within our power to skip these steps—but what kind of precedent does that set?

Never, in the history of this body, have we impeached a government official without first proving he has acted in deliberate bad faith.

Never, in modern practice, have we declined to provide the accused with the most basic due process: the right to counsel, the right to present evidence, and the right to question the evidence against him.

If the Commissioner’s critics have their way, I fear we will have a new rule going forward:

The House may impeach any government official, for any reason, without supplying evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, without an independent investigation, and without regard to basic fairness towards the accused.

Forcing a vote in this manner will certainly not result in the removal of the Commissioner.  Even if his critics succeed here, Senators of both parties have already stated their intent to bury the matter.

                                                                                                                                             

And in the process, I fear, we will have stripped our responsibilities of their weight and dignity, and turned impeachment from a constitutional check of last resort into a tool of political convenience.

I cannot accept that.  None of us should.  Commissioner Koskinen, thank you again for your willingness to be here today.  Stick to the law and the facts and you’ll be fine.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

GOP Attacks On IRS Commissioner Are Not Impeachment Proceedings

Fact Sheet

GOP ATTACKS ON IRS COMMISSIONER ARE NOT IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS

Impeachment Hearings Entail an Independent Investigation and Due Process for the Accused

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“Under the modern practice, an impeachment is normally instituted by the House by the adoption of a resolution calling for a committee investigation.  This committee may, after investigation, recommend the dismissal of charges or it may recommend impeachment.”  The effort to impeach Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen contains none of the hallmarks of actual impeachment hearings—which would entail an independent investigation and due process for the accused.

The Impeachment Process:

·         In the modern era, the impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives only after the House has voted to authorize the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether charges are warranted. 

·         This rule holds even when the underlying charges have been under investigation by other authorities and other congressional committees for years. For example, in the 93rd Congress, the House adopted H. Res. 803, authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire whether to impeach President Nixon; in the 105th Congress, H. Res. 581 authorized and directed the Committee to inquire into the impeachment of President Clinton; and in the 110th Congress, H. Res. 1448 directed the Committee to inquire whether to impeach Judge Porteous.

o   The sole exception for a successful impeachment occurred in the 99th Congress—when the judge under investigation was already in jail by the time he was convicted by the U.S. Senate.

·         In all modern cases, the Committee has conducted an independent, formal investigation into the charges underlying a resolution of impeachment—again, even when other authorities and other congressional committees have already investigated the underlying issue.  

·         Chairman Bob Goodlatte summarized the importance of this practice in 2010, when the Committee’s Task Force on Judicial Impeachment unanimously recommended four articles of impeachment against Judge G. Thomas Porteous.  Goodlatte said, “This recommendation was the culmination of an exhaustive investigation by the task force, which included reviewing the records of past proceedings, rooting out new evidence that was never considered.

Fact Sheet: Impeachment Hearings Entail an Independent Investigation and Due Process for the Accused IRS Co... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Hearing on “Examining the Allegations of Misconduct Against IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, Part I”

In the history of the Republic, the House of Representatives has voted to impeach a federal official only 19 times. I served on this Committee to consider six of those 19 resolutions.  I voted in favor of five of them.  And I helped to draft articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon—and joined with 20 Democrats and six Republicans—to send three of those articles to the House floor. The lessons I draw from these experiences are hard earned.

To begin with, the power of impeachment is a solemn responsibility—entrusted to the House of Representatives by the Constitution, and to this Committee by our peers.  The formal impeachment process is not to be joined lightly.  We do not rush into impeachment for short term political gain.

Second, before we can approve any resolution of impeachment, it is our responsibility to prove the underlying allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. Once the House authorizes us to do so, we must carefully and independently review the evidence—even if it has already been analyzed by our colleagues on other committees.  And we can only address allegations that are actually supported by the record.  We cannot infer wrongdoing from the facts.  We have to prove it.

Finally, a successful impeachment process must transcend party lines. The Framers knew this.  Article I of the Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate to convict on each article of impeachment.

The public knows this too.  When this Committee comes together and decides unanimously to remove a federal officer, our constituents know that we take the job seriously. 

When a vote for impeachment is divided on party lines—as it was on one occasion in my service to this Committee—we undermine our credibility and make it all but impossible to secure conviction in the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, we are here today because a small group of members wants us to take up H. Res. 494, a resolution to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. This resolution fails by every measure.  It arises from the worst partisan instincts.  It is not based in the facts.  And it has virtually no chance of success in the Senate.

Commissioner Koskinen is a good and decent civil servant.  He took office months after the so-called “targeting scandal” had concluded.  He then undertook a massive effort to respond to each of the investigations into the matter.

We are here today to consider the allegation that the Commissioner deliberately misled Congress as part of those efforts. The claim is not that we disagree with his decisions, or that we question the speed and completeness with which his agency provided answers—but that he knowingly and intentionally supplied us with false information.

Mr. Chairman, the record simply does not support this charge.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration investigated these allegations.  He concluded: “No evidence was uncovered that any IRS employees had been directed to destroy or hide information from Congress, the DOJ, or the Inspector General.”

In addition, career investigators at the Department of Justice also looked into these claims. They also found “no evidence that any official involved in the handling of the tax-exempt applications or IRS leadership attempted to obstruct justice.” It is no wonder, then, that we have read reports of Speaker Ryan doing his best to make certain this measure never reaches the floor of the House—as Speaker Boehner did before him. It is also not a surprise that many in the Republican conference have been critical of the strong-arm tactics that forced this hearing.

Representative Boustany, Chairman for the Subcommittee on Tax Policy, has argued that this hearing is a waste of time and potentially damaging to our priorities.  He told reporters last week: “If we do this, it’s going to further delay the investigation.  I think it’s time to move on.” Senator Orrin Hatch, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has said that there is simply no interest in impeachment in the Senate—where a two-thirds vote would be required for conviction. When asked about Commissioner Koskinen, Senator Hatch said: “We have a very different experience with him.  We can have our disagreements with him, but that doesn’t mean that there’s an impeachable offense.”  He added: “[F]or the most part, he’s been very cooperative with us.”

To summarize, Mr. Chairman: the proposed articles of impeachment have been debunked by independent investigators.  The resolution faces stiff, bipartisan opposition in the House, and even worse odds in the Senate. There are precious few working days left in this Congress, Mr. Chairman.  I am disappointed that we plan to spend, not just today, but an additional day in June discussing these unsubstantiated claims.

If at all possible, Mr. Chairman, please consider returning that second day to the substantive work of this Committee.  In any event, I urge you to lead us past this distraction quickly, and back to work of some actual benefit to the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.    

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Justice Department Finds No Political Targeting at IRS

Washington, D.C. (Oct. 23, 2015)—Today,Rep. John Conyers, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee and  Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued the following statements regarding the Department of Justice’s letter finding no evidence that the IRS targeted conservative groups for political reasons.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Ranking Member Conyers stated:

“The Department’s findings confirm what we have known since the self-proclaimed ‘conservative Republican’ manager in Cincinnati explained more than two years ago that the IRS did not target conservative groups for political reasons and took no direction from the White House.  This is also consistent with the conclusions of two Inspector General reports and multi-year House and Senate Congressional investigations, including a recent bipartisan report from the Senate Finance Committee.  It is time Republicans end this partisan witch-hunt and focus on matters that impact the lives of the American people.”

Ranking Member Cummings stated:

"Today, the Justice Department confirmed the same conclusions we had years ago.  Over the past five years, Republicans in the House of Representatives have squandered literally tens of millions of dollars going down all kinds of investigative rabbit holes – IRS, Planned Parenthood, Benghazi – with absolutely no evidence of illegal activity.  I believe the American people have higher expectations for their elected officials, and they want Congress to start doing its job and focusing on issues that matter instead of these ridiculous, partisan, taxpayer-funded attacks."

The IRS reported on June 3, 2015, that it has spent nearly $20 million responding to requests relating to this investigation:

“More than 250 IRS employees have spent more than 160,000 hours working directly on complying with congressional investigations, at a cost of approximately $20 million.”  

As of March 25, 2015, the IRS had produced more than 1.3 million pages of documents in response to Congressional requests.  The Oversight and Government Reform Committee alone has conducted 54 witness interviews, and the Inspector General has conducted multiple inquiries, the most recent of which included interviewing 118 witnesses and reviewing more than 20 terabytes of data. 

According to today's letter from the Department of Justice:

In collaboration with the FBI and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), the Department's Criminal and Civil Rights Divisions conducted an exhaustive probe.  We conducted more than 100 witness interviews, collected more than one million pages of IRS documents, analyzed almost 500 tax-exemption applications, examined the role and potential culpability of scores of IRS employees, and considered the applicability of civil rights, tax administration, and obstruction statutes.  Our investigation uncovered substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment, and institutional inertia, leading to the belief by many tax exempt applicants that the IRS targeted them based on their political viewpoints.  But poor management is not a crime.  We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution.  We also found no evidence that any official involved in the handling of tax-exempt applications or IRS leadership attempted to obstruct justice.  Based on the evidence developed in this investigation and the recommendation of experienced career prosecutors and supervising attorneys at the Department, we are closing our investigation and will not seek any criminal charges."

In June 2013, a self-proclaimed “conservative Republican” Screening Group Manager who worked at the IRS for 21 years as a civil servant and supervised a team of Screening Agents in the Cincinnati field office denied that he or anyone on his team was directed by the White House to target conservative groups applying for tax exempt status, or that their actions in screening tax-exempt applicants were politically motivated:

Q:        Do you have any reason to believe that anyone in the White House was involved in the decision to screen Tea Party cases?

A:         I have no reason to believe that.

Q:        Do you have any reason to believe that anyone in the White House was involved in the decision to centralize the review of Tea Party cases?

A:         I have no reason to believe that.

He further stated:

Q:        In your opinion, was the decision to screen and centralize the review of Tea Party cases the targeting of the President’s political enemies?

A:        I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development.

DOJ Letter on IRS Investigative Findings of Targeting Conservative Political Groups

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©